An Analysis of Jacob Stokes’ Argument on China and Korea

Summary of Jacob Stokes’ Argument

Subsequent disagreements and efforts at peace between the United States and China and North Korea have resulted in the formulation of strategies by the U.S. government. North Korea’s involvement in this disagreement between the United States and China powers stems from their involvement in foreign and security affairs with China. Additionally, the United States has been trying to resolve conflict, and for many years been at war with China on the Korean Peninsula. After years of North Korea and China having threats and leverage over each other, two heads of state namely Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un affirmed their agreement to a peace negotiation made years ago, which did not entirely erase the conflict between the nations but was followed by reduced adherence to the U.N.’s sanctions of China on North Korea. Due to this alliance, China was involved in the tension between the U.S. and North Korea, asking the government to reduce its sanctions against North Korea. The United States government under Joe Biden’s leadership has declared its willingness to exert pressure or have diplomatic negotiations with both countries. Washington’s strategies include applying pressure on both states, engaging both states in peaceful negotiations, and applying pressure on one state while exerting pressure on the other.

Considering the strategies by the U.S. government against North Korea and China, Jacob Stokes makes recommendations that may make the alliances and negotiations seem more possible. He suggests that the U.S.-China relations should be revised where the U.S. government should understand that the compartmentalization of China and North Korea is impossible since they have had agreements in the past. Additionally, the United States could improve its relations and strengthen its coalition with South Korea, to bring more allies to its side and reduce the chances of forming future enemies. As they do this, they could continue peaceful negotiations with North Korea and China to reduce their nuclear wars disagreements. The United States could declare an end of war, not as a peace treaty but assurance that war tension against North Korea and China is over. Another strategy employed could be geared towards empowering nations such as South Korea to build their nuclear arsenals by employing technicians to understand North Korea’s arsenal. This would also reduce fear in Japan and South Korea, allowing both countries to have powers of their own. Lastly, U.S. could continually engage South Korea, although discreetly on South Korea’s engagements with China regarding the Peninsula. Therefore, Jacob Stokes’ arguments are based on the impracticability of U.S. government strategies and could reduce the U.S.-China tension.

Subsequently, to determine this argument's viability, an analysis is necessary for the argument presented by Stoke. In this case, the analysis determines the strengths and the weaknesses present in the argument by evaluating some of its different factors and components. These components include the argument's framework for critical thinking, the accuracy and inclusion of all necessary facts for the argument to be made, and the inclusion of certain concepts such as strategic empathy, and the different possibilities in the situation. In addition, the analysis is more critical since the argument is based on a system of countries that includes a volatile environment with many uncertainties. 

Strengths of Jacob Stokes' Argument

The argument presented by Stokes is based on a strong foundational framework and is careful to identify all perspectives and concerns in a system. In this case, different literature and references offer various critical thinking patterns and frameworks, such as some of the derived critical thinking models from Paul and Elder's model[1]. This model identifies some of the major steps in determining an approach to complex situations, such as seen with what the United States faces with North Korea and China. The model's steps include clarifying the major concern and purpose of critical thinking and intervention, determining the various points of view, and assumptions in the system, and making inferences while evaluating the inferred information[2]. Stoke sources out the need for the intervention, which is to manage a critical situation that may harm the interests of the United States if not carefully dealt with. More so, different points of view and perspectives of all states present in the system, including South Korea, are taken into account, including recent trends for the countries. Thus, from these different stages of critical thinking, inferences can be made, such as the effectual conclusions and recommendations of the paper, especially in formulating a problem management approach to the already critical environment, in which the United States should acknowledge the lack of major solutions to the problem. Stokes applies systems thinking approach for the situation with all four major countries involved in the Korean Peninsula problem, which is identified by a holistic approach with more additional questions answered, such as the implication of a lack of definite solutions[3]. Stokes considers the environment in the region, including the actors and their past and current tendencies, the problem, and the rising tensions, and further develops an approach to the situation[4]. Therefore, Stroke's argument thrives in solidifying its critical thinking and approach framework to the Korean Peninsula problem. 

Secondly, the argument is also advantageous in representing the core values and national goals for the US's intervention in the region. One of the most critical guidelines for strategy formulation includes the consideration of national values, national interests, and purposes to determine the strategic goals and objectives. In this case, the most prioritized goal is illustrated from the national purpose of ensuring security for the US and its allies, such as South Korea. This goal is described as ensuring stability in the Korean Peninsula, which is directly affected by the relations between the US and China since China is the regional leader and has more influence, especially towards North Korea[5]. Thus, the argument well considers the major goals according to their priority as derived from national interests. 

Weaknesses of Jacob Stokes' Argument

Despite the various approaches and answers the argument offers, it still falls short of some of the necessary guidelines and concepts for the problem. In this case, one of the major weaknesses of the argument is the lack of strategic empathy and consideration of the direct interventions and interference of the United States in the problem, which has long plagued the country in the specific area[6]. This effect is majorly derived from the assumption that the United States exists in an organic global community, which will follow through with the actions of the US foreign policy without a more incentive determination of its effects. Further literature shows the theory of “wrongology”, where the United States can learn from previous mistakes in determining how to approach the situation by identifying when it is wrong[7]. For example, Stroke references the previous Six-Party talks, which North Korea formally withdrew from, which thus didn't fully work. Thus, Stroke's argument may not be thorough in determining the full effects of the United States' actions on both countries. 

Also, another major weakness includes the lack of full consideration and necessary assumptions for the situation, especially concerning both Presidents Xi Jinping's and Kim Jong Un's intentions and vision scope. Although China and Beijing's narrative implies their need for more security to ensure that a repeat of the humiliation they faced in the early 20th century doesn't occur, Stoke lacks a wholesome consideration of President Xi Jinping's vision and intention with China's global growing influence[8][9]. More so, China is fast growing as the second most influential country after the United States, with a possible growth in its GDP, which may surpass that of the United States in the next few years[10]. Thus, Stoke fails to consider and assume the potential outcomes from the interaction with China, despite indicating the lack of knowledge on the reasons for some of the actions the country has engaged in. Other possibilities and assumptions that Stoke fails to consider include the potential for a North Korean collapse in the government and the further potential damage it may cause for South Korea and the US[11][12]. Although Stoke recognizes the need to manage the problem, the argument lacks to identify the effect of a Chinese takeover or collapse on the North Korean government and its subsequent effect on the other state, such as further deteriorating relations between China and the US if North Korea falls. Thus, Stoke's argument fails to consider all facts, assumptions, uncertainties, and possibilities related to the complex situation regarding the Korean Peninsula and US-China relations. 

Conclusion

Jacob Stoke’s argument on the United States' relations with China and North Korea illustrates the volatility and complexity of the situation, with an emphasis on the instability of the Korean Peninsula and its effects on US and China relations, and vice versa. Stoke argues on the necessary actions the United States should take by first analyzing the situation, and then determining possible actions that should be taken. These actions include the acknowledgment of limited solutions for the United States in managing the deteriorating relationship with China and the growing instability in the Korean Peninsula. Thus, Stoke describes the best approach to be a problem management technique instead of trying to solve them. Although this argument is strong in its framework and critical thinking, it lacks important concepts for the United States’ foreign relations. These include a lack of strategic empathy and consideration of all assumptions. Still, Stoke maintains a viable argument in its framework and approach to answer the problem.

Bibliography

Amissah, Matthew, Thomas Gannon, and Jamie Monat. "What is systems thinking? expert perspectives from the WPI systems thinking colloquium of 2 October 2019." (2020): 6. DOI: 10.3390/systems8010006

Bennett, Bruce W. Preparing for the possibility of a North Korean collapse. Rand Corporation. (2013). https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/j.ctt4cgddf

Economy, Elizabeth. "Xi Jinping's new world order: Can China remake the International system?." Foreign Aff. 101 (2022): 52. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2021-12-09/xi-jinpings-new-world-order

Gerras, Stephen J. "Thinking critically about critical thinking: A fundamental guide for strategic leaders." Carlisle, Pennsylvania: US Army War College 9 (2008). https://events.tvworldwide.com/tvwwimages/fedexec/Thinking%20Critically%20About%20Critical%20Thinking%20Col%20Gerras.pdf

Kaufman, Alison A. "The “Century of Humiliation” and China’s National Narratives." Testimony before the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission Hearing on China’s Narratives Regarding National Security Policy. Extracted the 28 (2011). https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/3.10.11Kaufman.pdf

Mazarr, Michael J., Gian Gentile, Dan Madden, Stacie L. Pettyjohn, and Yvonne K. Crane. The Korean Peninsula: Three dangerous scenarios. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, (2018). https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE262.html

Rauch, Daniel, and Matthew Tackett. 2021. "Design Thinking". Ndupress.Ndu.Edu. https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/jfq/jfq-101/jfq-101_11-17_Rauch-Tackett.pdf?ver=HSjXXIJWEZWCKuh7JJ29Rw%3D%3D.

Schulz, Kathryn. Being wrong: Adventures in the margin of error. Granta Books. (2011). ISBN-13:978-0061176050

Seibt, Kristofer. "Beyond Strategic Empathy". The Strategy Bridge. (2020) https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2020/10/29/beyond-strategic-empathy.

Stokes, Jacob. "Tangled threats: Integrating US strategies toward China and North Korea." Washington, DC: Center for a New American Security. No. 1 (2021) From https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/tangled-threats

[1] Gerras, Stephen J. "Thinking critically about critical thinking: A fundamental guide for strategic leaders." Carlisle, Pennsylvania: US Army War College 9 (2008). https://events.tvworldwide.com/tvwwimages/fedexec/Thinking%20Critically%20About%20Critical%20Thinking%20Col%20Gerras.pdf